"Gaffney's argument boils down to this: Devout Muslims want to live under Sharia, the religious legal code that governs in Saudi Arabia and other traditional Islamic societies. But Sharia, which treats women as unequal, is incompatible with U.S. law. So organized Islam, Gaffney charges, is conspiring to supplant American law with Muslim law — and that, he says, is sedition."

Many religions treat woman as unequal; Amish, some Orthodox Jews, some fundamentalist Christians, etc. While I am not agreeing with this sexist attitude, I do respecttheir right of religious freedom to worship their God as they see fit in their own church.

Confucius

"One hundred girls are not worth as much as one boy."

Hinduism

"A woman must never enjoy independence."

Christian Bible: Paul to the Ephesians in the New Testament

"The women shall be servants to their men who are their masters."

"Murfreesboro's Muslims haven't actually done anything explicitly seditious, he acknowledges, but "you want to err on the side of caution."

Such paranoia does not belong in America. Religious tolerance does. The local town and their diverse religious leaders seems to understand that.

Glenn Beck talks about a spooky alliance between Islamists and leftists. Newt Gingrich calls sharia law abhorrent and urges the western world to ban it. Bill O’Reilly says that sharia law allows for things that most Americans think are illegal. Sean Hannity challenges Imam Rauf’s agenda of imposing sharia law on America. Are conservatives erecting a sharia bogeyman -- or is there a real threat?

There is an easy answer that does not require historical knowledge, political insight or religious study. It is possible to know if sharia is a threat to American culture by looking at the amount of sharia influence accepted in Europe. As Europeans have been swallowing bits and pieces of sharia cultural codes, they have normalized enough sharia practice for Americans to assess whether the same process is occurring here.

First, civilizational jihad operates by stealth. Islamists are not going to announce that there is a plan to subtly and incrementally inject sharia-compliant practices into western culture. The concessions Europeans have made resulted from coordinated public relations campaigns that cornered the culture into caving or being called intolerant. Thus, a seemingly innocuous accommodation like serving halal (Muslim approved) foods in public school cafeterias – as part of a year-round, daily regime – becomes a soothing matter of kindness and tolerance and is not honestly recognized as preferring one group’s socio-religious demands. Since sharia touches every area of a practicing Muslim’s life -- personal, social, familial, political, and legal -- there are many more such demands to be made of compliant communities.

For example, many French are outraged by the closure of streets in districts of Paris and Marseille for Friday prayers. As Muslims barricade the streets, they block traffic for curb-to-curb prayers in defiance of laws in this strictly secular society. Police are nearby, now to keep this new order. This practice started on the sidewalks as a demand for larger state-funded mosques and now spreads by sections of streets. This creeping expansion of turf is an instructive metaphor for western culture’s initial willingness to compromise and ultimate inability to draw a line. The west’s lack of cultural identity is allowing what cannot be accomplished at the ballot box to be accomplished by multicultural coercion.

Currently, there are hundreds of Muslim enclaves in France where sharia practices dominate and the French sense of “liberte, egalite, or fraternite” do not penetrate.

The United Kingdom has authorized sharia courts for Muslims to resolve civil disputes including marital and family conflicts. (Marc: To be precise, does this not apply to all religions?) Philip Davies, MP for Shipley, has observed that these sharia courts “lead to a segregated society” and “entrench division in society.” In a 2008 House of Lords appellate judgment Lord Hope said that the sharia law tenets at issue were “created by and for men in a male dominated society. There is no place . . . for equal rights between men and women.”

Recent examples show that Americans are keeping pace with Europe’s rate of Islamist accommodation. When the U.S. Government orders Bibles to be burned by the military in Afghanistan to avoid offending Muslims, but censors an American protestor who burned the Koran, this is de facto submission to sharia. When the government will not even try to protect an American cartoonist who proposes an “Everybody Draw Mohammad Cartoon Day” but tells her to go into hiding; when a radio station blacklists host’s wife for being “too anti-sharia;” when Yale University Press removed depictions of the controversial Danish cartoons from a book entitled The Cartoons That Shook the World; and, when four Dearborn Christians are arrested for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on a public street outside a Muslim festival, there is evidence that America is conceding important principles of individual liberty, equal protection, and constitutionally protected freedom.

The most culturally restrictive of the European concessions to Islam are the incitement-to-hate laws. Just the chance that racially-toned speech may trigger an angry reaction can provoke a criminal investigation. Several high profile “hate speech” prosecutions have demonstrated that the loss of speech freedoms will inhibit the ability of Europeans to define their culture according to their own Enlightenment values. Dearborn’s recent pre-emptive legal smackdown of Terry Jones’ demonstration near a mosque shows a similar erosion of vital expressive rights in the United States.

Each accommodation of Islamist demands is costly beyond measure when translated to a significant symbolic victory. For what the Islamists propose as an isolated act of cultural sensitivity is interpreted when conceded without a fight as powerful evidence of a culture that is morally weak and historically disconnected. While there is no tangible threat to the American way of life, it is easy to rationalize that the gains being consolidated by Islamists are not compromising American liberties. The sacrifice of expressive rights and cultural identity for temporary relief from the charges of intolerance only telegraphs willing incremental capitulation. What is lost in the race to placate the political Islamists among us is the reality that moderate Muslims are learning whether liberty-loving Americans can be trusted to keep sharia hardliners at bay.

A campaign on Facebook is calling for Saudi men to beat women who plan to drive cars in a protest next month, AFP reports.

"The Iqal Campaign: June 17 for preventing women from driving" advocates a cord be used to beat women who plan to drive. Women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.

Some 6,000 people have "liked" the campaign on Facebook.

It was created in response to female activist Manal al-Sharif, who created a page calling for Saudi women to defy the driving ban on June 17.

The Facebook page, called "Teach me how to drive so I can protect myself," was removed after more than 12,000 people indicated their support. The campaign's Twitter account also was deactivated.

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans women — both Saudi and foreign — from driving. The prohibition forces families to hire live-in drivers, and those who cannot afford the $300 to $400 a month for a driver must rely on male relatives to drive them to work, school, shopping or the doctor.

The issue is a highly emotional one in the kingdom, where women are also not allowed to vote, or even travel without their husbands' or fathers' permission.

About 800 Saudi people have signed a petition urging Saudi King Abdullah to release al-Sherif and to make a clear statement on women's right to drive.

"We are fed up," Waleed Aboul Khair, a lawyer and rights activists said. "Be frank," he said, addressing the country's rulers. "For the first time in the history of the kingdom, we have hundreds of people calling for the king to be frank."

"The society has moved. The society is not silent anymore," Aboul Khair said.

There is no written Saudi law banning women from driving, only fatwas, or religious edicts, by senior clerics that are enforced by police. King Abdullah has promised reforms in the past and has taken some tentative steps to ease restrictions on women. But the Saudi monarchy relies on Wahhabi clerics to give religious legitimacy to its rule and is deeply reluctant to defy their entrenched power.

Huwaini: "When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her"

Plundering the possessions, lives, and dignity of Christians in the Islamic world: is this a random affair, a product of the West's favorite offenders—poverty, ignorance, grievance—or is it systematic, complete with ideological backing?

Consider the very latest from the Muslim world: •Pakistan: Muslim landowners used tractors to plough over a Christian cemetery in order to seize the land illegally. A young Christian mother was raped by six men. "In both cases, police covered up for the culprits." •Iraq: A Christian youth was kidnapped and decapitated: his family could not pay the €70,000 ransom demanded by his abductors. "The murder was meant to intimidate Christians so that in the future they will more readily pay ransom demands." •Egypt: Christian girls continue to be abducted and forced into conversion or concubinage (which amount to the same thing) and "kept as virtual slaves."

None of this is surprising listening to popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini:

If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa or stands in our way, then we must kill them or take as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads (meaning slavery) [translated by Nonie Darwish; original Arabic recording here].

Huwaini actually made these scandalous assertions some eighteen years ago. But because they were only recently exposed, he was invited to "clarify" his position on Hikma TV last week. Amazingly, though he began by saying his words were "taken out of context," he nonetheless reasserted, in even more blunt language, that Islam justifies plundering, enslaving, and raping the infidel. (Al Youm 7 has the entire interview, excerpts of which I translate below.)

According to Huwaini, after Muslims invade and conquer a non-Muslim nation—in the course of waging an offensive jihad—the properties and persons of those infidels who refuse to convert or pay jizya and live as subjugated dhimmis, are to be seized as ghanima or "spoils of war."

Huwaini cited the Koran as his authority—boasting that it has an entire chapter named "spoils"—and the sunna of Muhammad, specifically as recorded in the famous Sahih Muslim hadith wherein the prophet ordered the Muslim armies to offer non-Muslims three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death/enslavement.

Huwaini said that infidel captives, the "spoils of war," are to be distributed among the Muslim combatants (i.e., jihadists) and taken to "the slave market, where slave-girls and concubines are sold." He referred to these latter by their dehumanizing name in the Koran, ma malakat aymanukum—"what your right hands possess"—in this context, sex-slaves: "You go to the market and buy her, and she becomes like your legal mate—though without a contract, a guardian, or any of that stuff—and this is agreed upon by the ulema."

"In other words," Huwaini concluded, "when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her."

Lest Muslims begin attacking all and sundry, however, Huwaini was careful to stress that Islam forbids Muslims from plundering and enslaving nominal or even "heretical" Muslims, such as Shias. He used the Iran-Iraq war as an example, saying that a Sunni man is not permitted to enslave and abuse a Shia woman, "for she is still a Muslim and thus considered free."

Unfortunately Huwaini's position is not "radical." One is reminded of when Sheikh Gamal Qutb was asked on live TV if Islam permits men to rape their female captives. The one-time grand mufti of Islam's most authoritative university, Al Azhar—the institution that once gave us the "adult breast-feeding" fatwa—refused to answer and, when pressed, became hostile and stormed off the set.

Let us now return to the atrocities that opened this article and ask: In light of the above, is it any wonder that Christians under Islam are routinely raped and ransacked, even as the "humanitarian" West yawns?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.You can read the original version online:http://ymlp190.net/zMuz8u--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many Americans are thus confused. Is Sharia Law a threat or not?Who is hurt if Muslims decide their disputes in a Sharia Court? Whatabout contract law between Muslims and non-Muslims? Can, and should,the United States of America have a parallel legal system dominated byIslam? If so, how will it work? Will Muslims and non-Muslims betreated equally? What are the rights of Muslim minorities?

- It reveals how Sharia Law has been used to settle cases inAmerican courts in the past.- It reveals how Sharia Law is being implemented through a wellthought out program of "death by a thousand cuts".- It reveals the impact of Sharia Law on the every day functioningof our court system and why this cannot be allowed to continue.

There are many other issues that come up as a result of Sharia Lawbut the main issue that the CSP report conveys is that those whosupport Sharia Law are not acting in the best interests of anyone, notleast of all Muslims. Many Muslims came to the United States to getaway (http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7943/8-questions-with-dr-zuhdi-jasser )from this misogynistic, barbaric, and unequal legal system that servesno other purpose than to elevate Muslim men to a position theycouldn't possibly attain by peaceful means. To paint Sharia Lawas"religious law" is to ignore reality. It is a legal system using thecover of religion to impose restrictions on people that are laughableat best and deadly serious to those who adhere to it.

There is no healthy median or redeeming qualities to Sharia Law.It must be kept out of our legal system and public life as there is noroom for both the Constitution and Sharia Law.

Follow Anti-CAIR on twitterGet private updates on your cell phone by textingfollow AntiCAIR to 40404 in the United Stateshttp://twitter.com/AntiCAIR

ADVISORY:Please use a non-corporate/non-work e-mail address if you contactCAIR or Anti-CAIR or receive our material. CAIR may attempt to shameyour employer into terminating you if they believe you are receiving"objectionable" material. We make every reasonable effort to protectour mailing list, but we cannot guarantee confidentiality. Anti-CAIRdoes not share, loan, sell, rent or otherwise publicize our mailinglist. We respect your privacy!

TIPS:All persons are invited to submit tips and leads. Anti-CAIR willacknowledge receipt of all tips/leads, but we will NOT acknowledge thesource of ANY tip or lead in our Press Releases or on our web site.Exceptions are made for leading media personalities at the discretionof Anti-CAIR and only on request of the person(s) submitting the tip

Yes, it's pretty creepy and disgusting. Do you imagine there is much support for this? Now, remember that Mohammed's 3rd wife was 6 years old, though he didn't consummate the marriage until she was 9 years old.

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

An 11-year-old Yemeni girl who was was married to a man in country's Hajja province was hospitalized today with genital injuries, said a human rights group in Sanaa.

It was the second incident involving a child bride in the last week. A 13-year-old girl died after being sexually assaulted by her adult husband. Both girls were married in the country's rural Hajja province.

The 11-year-old girl was married last year only under the condition that the adult husband would wait until she reached puberty to consummate the marriage. He did not wait, nor do many of the men who marry young brides, says Amal Basha, director of the Arabic Sisters Forum.

An estimated 50 percent of women in Yemen are married before age 18, some as young as 8.

Less than a week ago the Sana'a-based human rights group reported the death of a 13-year-old bride in the same rural area. The Associated Press reported the girl was allegedly raped, and that her 23-year-old husband is now in police custody.

"She looked like she was butchered," said the girl's mother, Nijma Ahmed. The AP also cited police a report saying the husband forced himself on his young bride, feeling under pressure to prove his manhood.

An average of eight women die each day in Yemen due to child marriage, many of them in childbirth, according to the Arabic Sisters Forum. The group runs a hotline for victims of domestic violence and has been lobbying in support of a minimum marriage age now under consideration by the Yemeni parliament.

Pushing against the proposed law is the strong hand of Islamic conservatives in Yemen. Clerics have declared women like Amal Basha apostates from Islam for opposing child marriage, which they see as divinely ordained. The government, she says, is intimidated by the religious and tribal customs.

U.S. Army tacitly endorses a religiously bigoted position: it is fine for Muslim service members to kill non-Muslims, but killing Muslims is grounds for an honorable discharge.

June 21, 2011 - 10:11 am - by Patrick Poole

A shocking decision made by the secretary of the Army last month — in the case of an U.S. Army soldier with the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell who refused to deploy to Afghanistan claiming that Islamic law prevented him from killing other Muslims — vindicates Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Hasan. He made identical claims and threatened that “adverse events” would occur if military officials didn’t accede to shariah principles.

The subject of the Fort Campbell case is PFC Nasser Abdo, who was granted conscientious objector status last month, only to be brought up on charges last week — two days after being informed of the secretary of the Army’s decision — after child pornography was found on his government-issued computer. The news reports about Abdo’s arrest were the first to mention the Army recognizing him as a conscientious objector. After his arrest, Abdo is now claiming that the child porn charges are the Army’s way of retaliating against him.

Abdo’s case has been championed by a number of media outlets, including Al-Jazeera and CNN. According to the Associated Press, in his claim for conscientious objector status, Abdo cited a number of Islamic scholars and Koranic verses in his defense:

I realized through further reflection that God did not give legitimacy to the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or any war the U.S. Army would conceivably participate in.

Abdo told Al-Jazeera:

I don’t believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don’t believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim.

He also told ABC News:

A Muslim is not allowed to participate in an Islamicly unjust war. Any Muslim who knows his religion or maybe takes into account what his religion says can find out very clearly why he should not participate in the U.S. military.

In a perverse twist, the ABC News report noted that a website dedicated to his cause operated by his friends claimed that Abdo:

… will be at danger of harassment and even death from his fellow soldiers, many of whom will be resentful of PFC Abdo’s religious beliefs and his desire to be discharged from the military.

No mention was made by ABC News of the potential of harassment and death for non-Muslim soldiers if Abdo wasn’t granted conscientious objector status, as was the case at Fort Hood with Major Nidal Hasan.

In Major Hasan’s case, the Washington Post reported just days after the Fort Hood massacre that he had warned his Army colleagues and supervisor at Walter Reed of “adverse events” if Muslims were not granted conscientious objector status. The warning occurred during a June 2007 Power Point presentation that was part of his psychiatric residency program. Major Hasan cited previous cases of Muslims murdering their fellow soldiers, spying against the U.S., deserting their units, and refusing to deploy as examples of the kinds of “adverse events” that would follow if the Army didn’t bow to the precepts of Islamic law.

Some Muslim groups have disagreed with Major Hasan and PFC Abdo, such as the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, run by retired Navy Commander Zuhdi Jasser. And Muslim soldiers at both Fort Hood and Fort Campbell, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan, are serving without any qualms.

But as veteran Pentagon reporter Bill Gertz reported in the Washington Times in March 2010, groups such as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) have issued fatwas prohibiting Muslims from even serving as military contractors aiding U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) even went so far as to write a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on behalf of another Muslim Army soldier stationed at Fort Hood claiming conscientious objector status on the same grounds as Hasan and Abdo.

By granting PFC Abdo’s conscientious objector claim, the Army may have created trouble for themselves in the court martial of Major Hasan for the murder of his thirteen fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Hasan’s attorney can now claim that by refusing to acknowledge Major Hasan’s claims under Islamic law as a conscientious objector and granting him an honorable discharge, the Army created irreconcilable conflict that prompted the Fort Hood massacre. And they can use the secretary of the Army’s decision in the Abdo case as proof.

But they have also created a greater problem. By bowing to the dictates of Islamic law, which defines the killing of a Muslim by another Muslim without right as terrorism, the U.S. Army has tacitly endorsed a religiously bigoted position that it is perfectly fine for Muslim service members to kill non-Muslims, but killing their co-religionists is totally out-of-bounds and is grounds for an honorable discharge. Is any other religion granted such accommodation? Will this decision help or discredit those Muslims serving honorably with both their fellow soldiers and the Muslim community?

Despite years of protestation by the U.S. government to the contrary, this decision vindicates all of these who have claimed that America is engaged in a war against Islam (including Osama bin Laden). The position that the Army now takes would also appear to acknowledge the classic Islamic doctrine of jihad that states that any incursion by non-Muslims into the lands of Dar al-Islam makes it an incumbent duty upon all Muslims everywhere to resist the “occupiers” — the position taken by al-Qaeda and every Islamic terrorist group on the planet.

How did the Unites States Army arrive at such a convoluted, ill-informed, contradictory, and self-defeating policy? By listening to the very Islamic “outreach” partners they have falsely assumed are operating in America’s best interests.

Patrick Poole is a regular contributor to Pajamas Media, and an anti-terrorism consultant to law enforcement and the military.

[Editor's note: Jamie Glazov's article below, Muslim Rape, Feminist Silence, is reprinted from our Nov. 1, 2006 issue. The subject is Western feminist silence about the Muslim rape of kafirs (non-Muslims) and the Islamic theology that sanctions it. Frontpage's editors thought it would be relevant to rerun in light of the recent startling Oslo police report confirming that every single solved case of assault-rape in the country in 2010 was carried out by a Muslim immigrant. Meanwhile, the Western Left remains completely silent.]

*

Muslim Rape, Feminist Silence By Jamie Glazov

Unveiled women who get raped deserve it.

That’s the pedagogy preached by the Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, who recently sparked an international stir by pronouncing that women who do not veil themselves, and allow themselves to be “uncovered meat,” are at fault if they are raped.

This is nothing new, of course, and it is somewhat mysterious why the Sheikh’s comments have caused any shock at all, since his view is legitimized by various Islamic texts and numerous social and legal Islamic structures. And that is why back in September 2004 in Denmark, al-Hilali’s Australian counterpart, the Mufti Shahid Mehdi, declared exactly the same thing, stating that unveiled women are “asking for rape.”

All of this, in turn, explains the skyrocketing epidemic of Muslim rape in non-Islamic countries. Muslim newcomers are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects throughout European nations such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

No wonder why many Muslim rapists openly admit their actions and justify them smugly with casual references to their religious and cultural beliefs. This horrifying phenomenon was on display in a court trial in Australia last year, in which a Muslim rapist, going by the name ”MSK”, taunted his sobbing 14-year-old victim and proudly professed the legitimacy of his sexual assaults on young girls by explaining that his victims were not veiled — as the Islamic religion mandates women to be. [1]

“MSK” is from Pakistan. He is doing in Australia what he learned best back home: in some of the most notorious rural areas of Pakistan, gang rape is officially sanctioned as a legitimate form of keeping women marginalized and “in their place.” As noted earlier, certain realms of Islam help institutionalize this form of violent misogyny. The Koran, for instance, permits Muslim men to enslave – and have sexual relations with – the women of unbelievers captured in the spoils of war (Sura 4:23-24). The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, sanctions this violence, affirming that Muslims can enslave captured infidel women and make them concubines.

To compound this pathology, a notion has developed within the system of gender apartheid in which Muslims like “MSK” have grown up: the idea that a woman who does not veil herself is somehow responsible for any sexual or physical harm done to her. In the psychopathic mental gymnastics that occur in the perpetrators’ minds, the unveiled woman must be sexually punished for violating the “modesty” code. Thus, when Islamic Muftis like Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali and Shahid Mehdi declare that women who refuse to wear headscarves are “asking for rape,” they are merely regurgitating a popular theme in many segments of Islamic culture.

In traditional Islamic law, rape cannot be proven unless four males testify as witnesses (Sura 24:4 and 24:13). In other words, raped women cannot get justice anywhere Islamic law prevails. More horrifying still, a woman who has the courage to say she was raped, and fails to produce the four male witnesses (which is obviously almost always the case), ends up being punished because her accusation is regarded as an admission of pre-marital sex or adultery. And this is why seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.

In Holland, myriad women now bear the horrible scar that has infamously become known as “smiley,” whereby one side of the face is cut up from mouth to ear – a war mark left by Muslim rapists as a warning to other women who don’t veil themselves.

In France, the phenomenon of Muslim gang rape as punishment for non-veiling even has a word to describe it: “tournante” (take your turn). In areas where Muslims form the majority (i.e. the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France), even non-Muslim women feel pressured to veil themselves in fear of Muslim sexual and physical punishment.

In the context of this epidemic of Muslim violence against women, and the open legitimization of it pronounced by Islamic clerics, one would think that the Western feminists of our time would be up in arms, sympathetically coming to the side of their raped sisters and standing up for women’s rights in general.

But this is just not the case.

The West’s leftist feminists are responding with an apathetic heartlessness and deafening silence. [2]

It’s all very much understandable and expected, of course: it is politically correct and cutting-edge to scream with moral indignation about a woman’s right to an abortion in the West, but to actually care for – and come to the public defense of – the female victim of a gang-rape committed by Muslims is unthinkable. This is so because admitting the Muslim rape epidemic, and the theology and institutions on which it is based, and denouncing it, would violate the central code of the “progressive” leftist faith: anti-Americanism and cultural relativism. No culture can be said to be better than any other – unless it is American culture, which is always fair game for derision and ridicule. But to criticize any Third World culture in general – and an adversary culture in particular – is to surrender the political cause and faith.

And that’s why leftist feminists are also completely mum on the horrors of forced marriages, honor killings and female genital mutilation within the Islamic world.

The worldview of Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, is perfect in representing leftist feminists’ stand on Muslim rape and Islamic gender apartheid. Wikan’s solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women stresses neither the punishment of the perpetrators nor the repudiation of the Islamic theology that legitimizes such abuse of women. Instead, Wikan recommends that Norwegian women veil themselves. This is because, in Wikan’s view, Western women must take their share of responsibility for the rapes, since they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a multicultural society and should, therefore, adapt themselves to it. Sheikhs Taj al-Din al-Hilali and Shahid Mehdi would be proud.

It has long been evident that Western leftist feminists couldn’t care less about real actual breathing women; they care only about their ideological beliefs. For them, the victims of Muslim rape can be easily forgotten and dismissed — for the pursuit of their ultimate goal: to aid and abet the West’s totalitarian enemies and to wreak the destruction of their own free societies which bestow the individual liberties and rights that they despise and abhor.

NOTES:

[1] Although debate exists about whether Islam enforces women’s veiling, and there are some valiant Islamic reformers fighting for a tolerant Islam that does not enforce veiling, the unfortunate reality is that Muslim fundamentalists find legitimacy for forced veiling in Islamic texts. See Robert Spencer’s Onward Muslim Soldiers, pp. 77-78 and The Truth About Mohammad, pp. 44 and 61.

[2] Dr. Phyllis Chesler has powerfully documented Western feminism’s betrayal of Islamic gender apartheid’s victims in The Death of Feminism.

*

Get the whole story of leftist feminists’ alliance with Islamofascists in Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

Yes, the POTH would know all about that, given they quote CAIR and MPAC without mentioning that they are Muslim Brotherhood/HAMAS front groups. They touch on "unindicted coconspirator" status, without mentioning that CAIR was listed as one.

In Saudi Arabia, Sharia court sentenced a woman accused of engaging in witchcraft to beheading by a sword. There are some unpleasant details: before dying, the "witch", apparently, suffered as the beheading was performed gradually, in three steps. Thus, she became the 73rd person executed this year in the country living under Sharia.

The Kingdom authorities do not always provide accurate information on the number of women executed in Saudi Arabia. However, from time to time the details in this regard come out.

For example, shortly before the "witch" was sentenced, by the verdict of the Sharia court an Indonesian woman was executed who killed her employer that tried to force her to have sex.

In October, the sentence was carried out against a Saudi woman who killed her husband. In Saudi kingdom death sentence is given to rapists, murderers and drug traffickers. The execution is usually carried out through severing heads with a sword.

Human rights organization "Amnesty International" calls on Riyadh to abolish the death penalty, but also points to a host of other violations of human rights (especially in relation to women), but these calls are not heard in the kingdom.

The last sentence again raises questions about women's issues in Saudi Arabia. Of all Muslim countries, the situation of women in this country raises most questions. Of course, there is Somalia, where raped and, therefore, dishonored women get stoned. But now, when the country is in a state of chaos and division and has no legitimate power, it is difficult to make particular claims against it. However, in Saudi Arabia, where women in the best case are treated as pets, and in the worst case as female species deprived of elementary human rights, it is quite possible to do so.

Yet, the West is very careful in making claims to the royal dynasty. In most cases, the "waters are mudded" by human rights activists and feminist organizations. The Western authorities fighting for the democratization of Libya, Syria and other countries for some reason do not see Saudi Arabia and its laws that many human rights and feminist organizations called "brutal" and "medieval."

However, the events of the "Arab Spring" gave some hope that things will change even in this country. But when and under what circumstances it can become a reality? Vladimir Isayev, chief researcher of the Center for Arab Studies with the Institute of Oriental Studies answered this and other questions in an interview with "Pravda.Ru":

"Indeed, in Saudi Arabia women's inequality to men is particularly noticeable. Suffice it to point to the fact that women cannot go out unaccompanied by men.

However, when someone in the West raises a question about the prospects for the triumph of democracy and human rights in the Arab world, many people forget that some things in Islamic countries simply cannot be undone. In this case, someone is perturbed by the fact that in Saudi Arabia a woman was executed with three hits of a sword, completely losing sight of the fact that it represents one of the Sharia laws. Sharia cannot be undone, as it is impossible to cancel, for example, the Bible. After all, the Quran prescribes certain standards of behavior in everyday life. This is the word of God, and no one can cancel or change it.

For example, Christian churches have their heads. In Islam, there is no authoritative person who would say "no" to the executions, although scholars can issue fatwas, for example, for the murder of Americans.

It is worth noting that Saudi Arabia is not the only example of Arab-Muslim country with strict laws. Each country should be regarded specifically. If you take Syria, such laws do not exist there since it is a secular country. But, for example, in Oman for the abuse of alcohol one can be not only thrown to jail, but given very painful hits with a stick on the soles of their feet. Even in the most liberal of all the Gulf countries, Kuwait, one can be arrested for kissing in public. This is the uniqueness of local laws.

However, even the provisions of Sharia are not performed in practice in all countries of the region. Currently some significant changes are observed in certain countries. If you take Iran, two years ago the women could be stoned for adultery. Now this practice has been suspended.

Another example from the Gulf: Kuwait's government allowed female TV hosts to appear on the central channel without a veil. In addition, recently a member of the local parliament for the first time in history included as many as four women. By the standards of the Gulf it is a real breakthrough. I am not even talking about the fact that in Kuwait and the Emirates, unlike in Saudi Arabia, women are not only able to walk with open faces, but also drive cars. It is important to note that Kuwait is a much more liberal country than its neighbors in terms of ​​finance, which has a certain effect on other aspects of life.

In some countries secular and Sharia justice are combined to a certain extent, and the courts have a clear indication of their jurisdiction. However, in Saudi Arabia no breakthroughs are observed. As I said above, much depends on the specifics of a particular country. Saudis, due to the fact that their territories host the main Muslim shrines - Mecca and Medina - are inclined to further demonstrate their commitment to Islamic values ​​and be closer than others to Islam.

This is not the least factor that affects the conservative nature of the leadership of the country. Should it be surprising that the position according to which "even the best of women is a snake" still takes place? I would not count on any global changes with the women issue in this country in the foreseeable future."

A federal appeals court has blocked an Oklahoma voter-approved measure barring state judges from considering Islamic and international law in their decisions.

"The proposed amendment discriminates among religions," said the judges. "The Oklahoma amendment specifically names the target of its discrimination. The only religious law mentioned in the amendment is Sharia law."

Judges’ consideration of Shari‘a when deciding cases may be the most alarming avenue by which Islam influences Western legal systems, but it is not the only one. With increasing regularity, Islamic practices sway the administration of courtrooms, affecting when sessions are held, who must rise, and what attire is permissible. This trend should not be overlooked. Courts that yield to Islamic norms, even in mundane matters, encourage Islamists and cast doubt on the future of equal rights and responsibilities under the law.

Ramadan. The Islamic month of fasting can require significant shuffling of schedules by devout Muslims, but are secular courts obligated to alter theirs? Some answer in the affirmative.

Muslim convert Mark Edward Wetsch is one recent beneficiary. Charged with robbing 13 Minnesota banks, he objected to a hearing set for July 20, 2012, the first day of Ramadan, and asked that it be pushed back for a month. Though Judge Jeanne Graham initially declined the request, he persisted. Ramadan means “not engaging in conflict and argument,” but rather taking part in “work to reconcile differences and seek peace,” according to a motion filed on his behalf. “Clearly, a contested hearing in which the government is making allegations against Mr. Wetsch and he is fighting against [them] causes him to engage in conflict and argument.” Graham relented and issued the desired continuance.

The U.S. military court that will try five al-Qaeda terrorists accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks bent to similar sensitivities this year. After turning their May 5 arraignment into a circus, the jihadists sought to postpone a hearing scheduled for the week of August 8, near the end of Ramadan. James Connell III, a government-compensated defense attorney, stressed in a filing that “the last 10 days of Ramadan commemorate the night God — Allah — revealed the Holy Quran to the Prophet Mohammed.” Hence, “these 10 days are the most holy period of the Muslim calendar and are typically observed by fasting, prayer, and seclusion.” Despite having previously ruled out Ramadan-related extensions, the judge, Colonel James Pohl, agreed to a delay. Connell was relieved: “It’s very difficult to pay attention to sometimes intricate legal proceedings when you haven’t had any sleep and you haven’t had any food.” (In one bright spot, Pohl rebuffed a petition not to hold hearings on Fridays, the day of communal Islamic prayers.)

Such Ramadan accommodations are not new. Four years ago, a French judge postponed a trial after a lawyer complained that “his client, a Muslim, would have been fasting for two weeks and thus, he said, be in no position to defend himself properly,” in the words of the BBC. “He would be physically weakened and too tired to follow the arguments as he should.” (Note that Muslims have played professional football during Ramadan fasts, so it is not obvious that ordinary Muslims are incapable of sitting in a courtroom.) A prosecutor denied that Ramadan had anything to do with the change, but others believed it to be the sole viable explanation. Fadela Amara, a Muslim then serving as urban affairs minister, decried the “knife wound” to France’s separation of religion and state.

Of course, scheduling controversies are not exclusive to Islam. In 2011, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court had “abused its discretion” by rejecting an Orthodox Jewish plaintiff’s motion to suspend a malpractice trial for two days due to Shavuot, during which his faith would preclude him from working or having work done for him. However, the decision stands out because many other U.S. federal and state courts have found no abuse of discretion by judges who did not grant similar Jewish holiday requests. If a continuance of one or two days is not automatic, then certainly the bar should be that much higher for a month-long Ramadan break — especially when its religious necessity is far less concrete than the work proscriptions characterizing strictly observed Jewish holidays.

Rising for judges. Standing when a judge enters and leaves the courtroom is a centuries-old tradition conveying respect for authority and maintaining order. Those who fail to rise may be cited for contempt, but some Muslims are challenging this point of protocol.

The most important U.S. case has centered on Amina Farah Ali, a citizen and Minnesota resident who, along with a second woman, faced federal charges of funding a Somali terrorist organization; both were convicted last autumn. After Ali did not stand at a pretrial hearing, Judge Michael Davis warned that all must do so. Unlike other Muslims present, she refused again and again for the first two days of the trial, prompting Davis to issue 20 contempt citations carrying jail time. The defendant said that because Islam’s prophet had told his followers that they did not need to honor him in that way, it would be wrong of her to stand for anyone but Allah. An appeals court threw out 19 of the citations in June, determining that an ultimatum to rise “substantially burdens the free exercise of religion” for her. It instructed Davis to consider her rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which declares that religious exercise can be curbed only if the government has a compelling reason. On September 18, Davis reinstated contempt charges but then quickly “purged” them, dropping the penalties. While there are precedents for religious exemptions from the standing requirement, involving Quakers in particular, Ali’s case opens the door for a very different group: American Islamists eager to thumb their noses at the secular legal system. Expect more such incidents in the U.S.

Comparable conflicts have erupted elsewhere. Several radicals later found guilty of shouting hatred at British troops during a 2009 homecoming parade would not rise at their trial, because “in Muslim countries it is a grave and cardinal sin to show respect in this way to anyone other than God himself.” Although the UK is not a Muslim country — at least not yet — the judge caved, acceding to a compromise whereby they could enter the courtroom after she did. Accused terrorists are not big fans of the standing requirement either, as seen in 2007 at the outset of proceedings against nine men from Sydney, Australia, charged with plotting attacks. According to one account, the judge “was not concerned by the refusal but suggested it might not be a wise course of action when the trial started,” for jurors could take a harsher view. The jihadists got their comeuppance regardless: all eventually pleaded guilty or were convicted.

The issue has extended to lawyers as well. Mohammed Enait, a fundamentalist attorney in the Netherlands, initiated a long dispute over his resolve to stay seated on the grounds that all are equal before Allah. Mixed messages ensued. A court in 2008 approved an exception for Enait, but it was reversed. Meanwhile, the bar association reprimanded him, but an appeals tribunal voided it, referencing his “sincere and authentic religious convictions.”

Clothing. Common sense dictates that face veils (niqabs) should not be welcome in a court of law, where security is critical, participants must be identified, and some judges and lawyers use facial expressions to analyze the veracity of statements. Yet none of this has slowed the push for concessions.

The good news is that most witnesses wanting to wear niqabs are turned down, as demonstrated by examples from Australia, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. However, the temporarily uncovered women often are allowed to testify with backs to the audience or from behind screens — an accommodation in and of itself. Also of relevance, judges have been known to expel women in niqabs from public seating areas, with recent ejections in France, where face-concealing attire is now broadly restricted, and Sweden, where safety concerns were voiced at a hearing related to a plot to kill cartoonist Lars Vilks.

There they go again. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has just put out an Action Alert that takes direct aim at the Constitution of the United States.

At issue is the Michigan state legislature’s House Bill No. 4769, which looks likely to pass in coming days. Quite simply, that bill states that no foreign law may take precedence over American law or Michigan state law in a Michigan court room.

The key provision of the bill is Section 2, which says:

“A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”

That’s it. Seems pretty straightforward and entirely in keeping with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

So why would CAIR call on its members to oppose legislation that protects all American citizens, upholds the U.S. Constitution and in no way interferes with the right of any individual to freely exercise his or her religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

CAIR (a Muslim Brotherhood front group) points to the answer in its own words. Its Action Alert decries “discrimination on followers of a minority faith” and terms the legislation “anti-Islam,” even though there is no mention of Islam or any other faith in the bill.

There’s also no mention of any specific foreign law, just the general proviso that if ever there is a conflict between any foreign law – be it French law, Islamic law, Japanese law, Zambian law or any other – and U.S. and/or Michigan state law, it is the American law and the Michigan law that will prevail.

So, then, in what way is such legislation “anti-Islam”?

It would seem that CAIR is saying that Islam is not just a religion, but actually a legal system (hint: it’s called “sharia.”) This is quite forthcoming of them, because in fact, of course, Islam is not merely about diet/fasting, devotion, prayer, worship, pilgrimage, and proselytizing (Da’wa), which are completely 100% protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No, as CAIR is rightly pointing out, Islam is also a “complete way of life,” encompassing a legal, military, political, and social system. The name of that “complete way of life” is sharia (Islamic law), which governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life and actually forbids a separation between faith and governance. It is unlawful under sharia for a devout, practicing Muslim to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”

The CAIR Action Alert against Michigan’s pending legislation perhaps unintentionally illustrates this in a most instructive way. The reason the Muslim Brotherhood and all other sharia-adherent Muslims cannot accept that sharia provisions that conflict with U.S. law be superseded by Constitutional law in American courts is precisely the notion that Islamic law must dominate all other laws on earth in every respect.

Of course, this sort of legal supremacism is not only in direct contravention of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution; if acted upon, it arguably also could be grounds for a charge of sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, or misprision of sedition.

Aside from the obvious need to ensure that American law prevails in American courts, the specific nature of Islamic law is particularly problematic. Of course, CAIR does not mention this in its Action Alert, but although sharia indeed contains legal prescriptions about devotion and worship as well as many other aspects of life, there are also multiple elements of sharia that are utterly antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Most important of all is that the Islam of sharia mandates legal inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women. Sharia also imposes barbaric, mutilating punishments for theft, flogging for “fornication” and the death penalty for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality and, in some cases, slander/blasphemy. For those who do not accept the rule of Islam, sharia is a supremacist, violently expansionist doctrine that requires every Muslim to participate in jihad, which is “warfare to spread the religion.”

Clearly, then, CAIR, which was named by the Department of Justice an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, is presenting a misleading impression of Michigan’s “Restriction of Application of Foreign Laws Act” and also concealing its real reasons for opposing it.

This kind of deliberate dissimulation is called taqiyya and is often used by adherents of sharia to deceive the non-Muslim (infidel or kafir). Quite helpful for everyone, however, is the unintended way that CAIR provides a revealing look inside the operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in America as it seeks to protect the insinuation of sharia provisions into the U.S. legal system.

As a careful reading of Michigan’s House Bill No. 4769 will confirm, this legislation actually provides assurance that American Muslim families are afforded the same constitutional protections and liberties as other Americans. Unfortunately, as a June 2011 Center for Security Policy study demonstrated, Islamic law (sharia) is present already in the U.S. legal system in a significant way.

The data presented in the “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases” study documented a total of 50 cases from 23 different states involving a “conflict of law” between sharia and American state law. Sharia-based legal conventions or decisions from 16 foreign countries had been brought to bear upon these 50 cases.

Muslim Americans, many of whom came to the U.S. to escape the oppressive rule of sharia in their home nations, are no less deserving of the protections of American law than other Americans born into the privilege of living in a free country where faith and state are kept separated by law.

Liberty-and-equality-protecting legislation like Michigan’s House Bill No. 4769 already has been passed in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana and Tennessee and has been introduced in more than 20 more states, including Michigan. Emails, letters and phone calls from constituents in these states to state legislators can help to ensure passage for such measures. Residents of Michigan can contact their state representatives here.

Ironically, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper himself supports the intent behind this legislation when it serves his purposes. When a Muslim woman working in Washington, D.C.'s Dulles International Airport for Aerotek, a local staffing agency for Air France, was told she could not wear her hijab to work because it was against Air France's uniform policy, Hooper was quoted as saying:

“Our position is that no company doing business in America has the obligation to enforce discriminatory foreign policies on American employees,” he said. “A discriminatory dress code implemented in France does not supersede American laws protecting the religious rights of American citizens.”

Mr. Hooper, we couldn’t agree more. Perhaps you could mention this to the folks in Michigan.

U.S. Policy Defending Sharia, Not American CitizensSun, December 2, 2012by: Clare Lopez

U.S. Sec. of State Hilliary Clinton with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi (Photo: U.S. State Dept.)America’s involvement in the global jihad against Western civilization—on the side of the jihadis—is accelerating. Instead of standing firm as leader of the free world and defender of inalienable human rights, U.S. policy is shifting demonstrably to the defense of those who systematically deny such rights to their own people and seek to suppress them everywhere.

Since 2009, U.S. foreign policy has backed Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood power plays in Libya, Egypt and now Syria, too. As reported by RadicalIslam.org, the U.S. Department of State is working closely with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose top objective is the criminalization of the criticism of Islam.

U.S. troops in Afghanistan are subject to suicidal Rules of Engagement (ROEs) drafted in deference to Islamic law by commanders desperate to appease Islamic sensibilities. At home, the White House cultivates relationships with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)/HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood leadership figures and associates. Instructors, trainers and any curriculum that would describe accurately the link between Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism have been methodically purged from U.S. government, intelligence and law enforcement classrooms.

And now, an American citizen, a pastor, has just been sentenced to death in absentia by an Egyptian state security court for his alleged involvement in promoting an obscure online film called “The Innocence of Muslims.” Egyptian Judge Saif al Nasr Soliman handed down the death penalty on charges of “insulting the Islamic religion” on November 28, 2012 for Florida Christian pastor Terry Jones and seven expatriate Egyptian Coptic Christians who are reported to have helped produce and promote the video.

The low-budget film was made in the U.S. and accurately, if crudely, depicts some of the less admirable episodes from the Sirat Rasul Allah (biography of the Muslim prophet Mohammed). Orchestrated demonstrations broke out across the Muslim world in September, 2012 involving thousands of angry people who’d never seen the film and probably had no access to the Internet anyway (where the film’s 14-minute trailer had been posted for over two months at that point).

Instead of taking the opportunity to explain the U.S.’s commitment to First Amendment free speech rights, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were quick to disclaim any responsibility for the video and attempted to assuage Islamic feelings by sending out a stream of Twitter apologies (that were later deleted):

@USEmbassyCairo

We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

11 Sep 12

Worse yet, the September 11, 2012 Ansar al-Shariah assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, his staffer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEAL CIA security contractors, was deceitfully used by the Obama administration for weeks afterwards as an excuse to promote a narrative in perfect sync with the OIC and aimed at curbing American free speech rights.

Indeed, as if on cue, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (whom Secretary of State Clinton had welcomed to Washington, D.C. in December 2011 for closed door talks) called on for a “global ban on offending the character” of Mohammed on September 29, 2012 at the United Nations (UN).

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Morsi, the U.S.’s new man in Cairo, likewise used the occasion of his first address to the UN to launch an attack on free speech, avowing that insults against Mohammed and Islam “are unacceptable” and adding that, “We reject this. We cannot accept it,” and “We will not allow anyone to do this by word or deed.”

Unfortunately in this, Morsi was only echoing the words of his sponsor, U.S. President Barack Obama, who spoke at the UN the day before and, after a perfunctory nod in the general direction of America’s foundational principles on free speech, let the world know that he really didn’t believe in it all that very much and in fact, felt a lot closer to the Islamic doctrine on slander than to the First Amendment.

After making no fewer than six deliberately misleading references to the Internet film narrative as the cause of the Benghazi base attack, he declared that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” In a deferential bow to Morsi’s warning two days after the Benghazi attack that the prophet Mohammed “is a red line nobody can touch,” Obama was openly responding to Morsi’s reported request that he ''take dissuasive measures against those trying to demolish relations with the U.S.''

While the death sentences against the film team were pronounced in absentia by an Egyptian sharia-compliant court, given the direction Obama, Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Ambassador Susan Rice and a good part of the U.S. government seem to be leaning—empowering the forces of Islamic jihad and sharia abroad and embracing them at home—the guarantee of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution begins to seem a little less ironclad than it did before.

As of this writing, there’s been not a peep of condemnation from a one of them for Egypt’s blatant act of aggression against a U.S. citizen and seven other Christians who fled sharia in Egypt and thought they’d found a safehaven in the West. The alleged producer of the film, an Egyptian Coptic expatriate who has used the name Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was ostentatiously arrested on September 27, 2012, just as Hillary Clinton had promised to Charles Woods (the father of CIA contractor Tyrone Woods slain in the Benghazi attack) and subsequently sentenced to one year in jail, supposedly on probation violation charges. Sharia regimes like Egypt’s know how that works.

It is time to ask, “What exactly is official U.S. policy on jihad, sharia and the Islamic Awakening?” President Obama is now on record with two intelligence findings (one for the Libyan opposition and one for the Syrian opposition) that have committed the resources of the U.S. government to fighters whose ranks were known to be dominated by jihadis affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood seeking to replace regional strong men with Islamic rule. The Benghazi base is reported to have been the command and control hub for U.S. efforts to remake the map of the Middle East in favor of the forces of sharia.

Open backing for Mohammed Morsi has not been balanced by so much as a hint of U.S. criticism for his dictatorial power grab in Egypt, undisguised support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Gazan off-shoot HAMAS and its naked aggression against Israel, or failure to condemn the Egyptian judge’s death sentence against an American citizen.

In the absence of a clear White House policy statement that the liberty-crushing mandate of Islamic jihad and sharia are a clear and present danger to American national security, accompanied by a new National Security Strategy document that lays forth the plan to confront and defeat all who promote such ideology, it must be concluded that the current policy of the U.S. government is to empower and enrich the jihadist enemy. The American citizen is on his own.

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 25 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Law allowing rapists to marry underage victims to be changed, says Morocco

RABAT, MOROCCO—Nearly a year after Morocco was shocked by the suicide of a 16-year-old girl who was forced to marry her alleged rapist, the government has announced plans to change the penal code to outlaw the traditional practice.

Rape victim forced to marry attacker commits suicide

Women's rights activists on Tuesday welcomed Justice Minister Mustapha Ramid's announcement, but said it was only a first step in reforming a penal code that doesn't do enough to stop violence against women in this North African kingdom.

A paragraph in Article 475 of the penal code allows those convicted of “corruption” or “kidnapping” of a minor to go free if they marry their victim and the practice was encouraged by judges to spare family shame.

Last March, 16-year-old Amina al-Filali poisoned herself to get out of a seven-month-old abusive marriage to a 23-year-old she said had raped her. Her parents and a judge had pushed the marriage to protect the family honour. The incident sparked calls for the law to be changed.

The traditional practice can be found across the Middle East and in places like India and Afghanistan where the loss of a woman's virginity out of wedlock is a huge stain on the honour of the family or tribe.

While the marriage age is officially 18, judges routinely approve much younger unions in this deeply traditional country of 32 million with high illiteracy and poverty.

“Changing this article is a good thing but it doesn't meet all of our demands,” said Khadija Ryadi, president of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights. “The penal code has to be totally reformed because it contains many provisions that discriminate against women and doesn't protect women against violence.”

She singled out in particular outmoded parts of the law that distinguish between “rape resulting in deflowering and just plain rape.” The new article proposed Monday, for instance, gives a 10-year penalty for consensual sex following the corruption of a minor but doubles the sentence if the sex results in “deflowering.”

Fouzia Assouli, president of the Democratic League for Women's Rights, echoed Ryadi's concerns, explaining that the code only penalizes violence against women from a moral standpoint “and not because it is just violence.”

“The law doesn't recognize certain forms of violence against women, such as conjugal rape, while it still penalizes other normal behaviour like sex outside of marriage between adults,” she added. Recent government statistics reported that 50 per cent of attacks against women occur within conjugal relations.

The change to the penal code has been a long time in coming and follows nearly a year of the Islamist-dominated government balking at reforming the law.

The Justice Ministry at the time argued that al-Filali hadn't been raped and the sex, which took place when she was 15, had been consensual. The prime minister later argued in front of parliament that the marriage provision in the article was, in any case, rarely used.

“In 550 cases of the corruption of minors between 2009 and 2010, only seven were married under Article 475 of the penal code, the rest were pursued by justice,” Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane said on Dec. 24.

While Morocco updated its family code in 2004, a comprehensive law combating violence against women has been languishing in Parliament for the past eight years.

Social Development Minister Bassima Hakkaoui, the sole female minister in Cabinet, said in September she would try to get the law out of Parliament and passed. __________________

It's not rape unless four adult male muslim men were witness to the assault and testify in sharia court to that effect. Lacking that testimony, a female that reports having had sex outside of marriage is admitting to "zina", which depending on the sharia court jurisdiction, is punishable by imprisonment or execution.

On the bright side, they don't have to worry about carrying a concealed weapon on a campus, which makes democrat legislators feel better.

Not All Muslims imprison, torture two men for helping someone convert to Christianity

7:57 AM 05/13/2013

Jim Treacher

This post is racist because it contains facts about what some Muslims did. The following incident has nothing to do with any other incidents, past or future.

AFP:

A Saudi court jailed a Lebanese man for six years and sentenced him to 300 lashes after convicting him of encouraging a Saudi woman to convert to Christianity, Saudi dailies reported Sunday.

The same court sentenced a Saudi man convicted in the same case to two years in prison and 200 lashes for having helped the young woman flee the ultra-conservative, US-backed Sunni kingdom, local daily Al-Watan said.

A court delivered the verdict in Khobar in the kingdom’s east, where the woman and the two accused worked for an insurance company…

The woman, known only as “the girl of Khobar,” was granted refuge in Sweden where she lives under the protection of unspecified NGOs, according to local press reports…

Saudi women are banned from travelling without their guardians’ permission.

Which would be bad, if she wasn’t being subjugated by members of a Designated Victim Group. In the byzantine calculus of political correctness, Islam > feminism. It’s only a War on Women when Republicans refuse to pay for other people’s birth control, not when an entire gender is subjugated by a religion we’re not supposed to criticize because it’s exotic.

We have to respect their cultural differences, because they’re not conservative Caucasians with cash. And if Not All Muslims decide to blow up some more people at a marathon or someplace, well, we should’ve thought about that before we decided to be evil Americans.

Any questions? Good. Get back to work. You’ve got taxes to pay.

(Hat tip: Eugene Volokh)

P.S. Boston bombers’ mosque recommended men beat their wives. Which has nothing to do with anything, racist. Racist.

For two days, they burned cars. They shouted about racism and attacked police, hurling stones and shattering windows of the local police department. In Trappes, France, the riots that broke out last month over laws against wearing a niqab (or veil) in public threatened lives, disrupted the country, and raised, yet again, questions about conflicts between the culture of France's secular democracy and much of its Muslim population. And though such riots take place frequently in France (in 2005, they ended only after the government was forced to impose a state of emergency), those conflicts – and the issues they represent – seem no closer to resolution.

This time, the trouble broke out after police, conducting a routine identity check, stopped a woman wearing niqab in Trappes, near Versailles, on July 18. When they asked her to remove the face-covering, her husband – a French-born convert to Islam – allegedly attempted to strangle one of the officers. He was immediately arrested, but the riots broke out soon after. By July 20, nearly 1,000 of Trappes' 30,000 inhabitants had joined the violent clashes, which spread to nearby neighborhoods.The events have reignited concern over a number of issues regarding the clashes between Muslim and non-Muslim communities that continue to plague France, which has the largest population of Muslims in Europe (numbering about 5 million). These same issues, in fact, have come to haunt all of Europe as its Muslim population grows, and, with it, the radicalization of European Muslim youth.

France banned the burqa and the niqab, both of which hide women's faces, in 2010, imposing a fine on women who continue to wear the garments in public. (The law became active one year later.) Belgium and the Netherlands have since followed suit, and the idea is repeatedly broached in other European countries. Supporters of the policy claim that the burqa and niqab oppress women and violate Western mores; and that the inability to see a person's face presents a security risk to the public.

Opponents maintain that the garments represent a religious mandate, and that such bans constitute religious discrimination and infringe on the rights of Muslim women – though in truth, there is nothing in the Koran that mandates any such form of dress. Yet others argue more simply that the subject of wardrobe choice is not and should not land in the realm of the law.

In an ideal world, perhaps this last argument would be the case; but in fact, niqab-clad women – and men – have used the garment as a tool in committing crimes from robbery (including a string of five bank robberies in Pennsylvania) to kidnapping and worse, relying on the ease with which they can move about entirely anonymously within.

Moreover, with so-called "burqa bans" in place in a number of Muslim countries including Turkey and Tunisia, the law hardly, as many Western Muslims argue, represents a form of institutionalized "Islamophobia." Indeed, barely more than 400 French Muslim women have been cited for violating the ban, indicating that several million of their French sisters have been unaffected in the practice of their religion.

Interestingly, too, most of those who have persisted in wearing the niqab are under age 30, according to Le Journal du Dimanche. That fact meshes with signs that many of Europe's young Muslims are becoming more religiously conservative, often in rebellion against the Western traditions of the countries in which they live – and in most cases, were born and raised.

What's more, Abdallah Zekri, president of L'observatoire de l'Islamophobie, a French Muslim rights organization, says that the majority of these women are converts. They "understand nothing about Islam or the Koran, who want to be more Muslim than Muslims."

In France, as elsewhere, it is both young, Western-born Muslims and Muslim converts who are the easier and more frequent targets for Al Qaeda recruiters, and for radical imams seeking to build Shariah-ruled communities in the West. The niqab fight is, in effect, simply a manifestation of this.

And that, argues the French state and other proponents of the ban, is quite the point: the niqab has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the politics of culture, in this case, that reflect a very real threat to the Enlightenment values of the West. As one American Muslim woman (who asked to remain anonymous given the sensitive nature of the subject) told me, "the niqab isn't even an Islamic code of dress."

"The Prophet's wives did not dress like this," said the woman, a Pakistani-American Muslim who divides her time between the two countries, "and so I don't understand this radical interpretation. In fact, it's not even an interpretation. It's just crazy."

Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah attends the first working meeting of the G20 summit in September in St. Petersburg, Russia.Vladimir Astapkovich/Getty Images

The Sultan of Brunei said his country would soon be ruled by a set of strict Islamic criminal laws, making Brunei the first Southeast Asian country to institute Sharia Law at a national level.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

"Islam has long been the official religion of this tiny country in the Borneo island, which is split into three parts with Malaysia and Indonesia as well. Brunei, with a population of more than 400,000, has one of the highest per-capita incomes in Southeast Asia, thanks to its offshore oil reserves in the South China Sea. Its monarch, who has ruled the country from 1967, is also the prime minister and controls the defense and finance ministries.

"'It is because of our need that Allah the Almighty, in all His generosity, has created laws for us, so that we can utilize them to obtain justice,' Sultan and Prime Minister Hassanal Bolkiah said in a statement.

"The new set of laws under Islamic code, the Shariah Penal Code, would broaden the scope of religious justice that is now limited to some Sharia courts dealing in personal and family issues, such as marriage disputes. The new laws, the sultan said, would go into effect in six months."

The AFP reports that under the new law, an adulterer could be stoned to death, a thief could face a severed limb, drinking alcohol could lead to flogging.

The French wire service reports that Human Rights Watch is calling the legal change "abhorrent."

"Brunei is showing its feudal characteristics as an 18th-century state rather than an important member of a regional Southeast Asian economic and social consensus in the 21st century," Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, told AFP.

Voice of America, a foreign news service funded by the U.S. government, reports the punishments will only apply to Muslims, who make up two-thirds of the country. VOA adds:

"Officials have promised that the new punishments would require a high burden of proof and that their application would be subject to approval by judges.

"In his speech Tuesday, the sultan insisted the new rules will not change his country's relationship with other nations. Some viewed this as an assurance to foreign investors."